sions of public funds and a certain amount of 
societal dislocation. Conflicts among competing rec- 
reational interests is complicated by the virtual im- 
possibility of reaching a consensus among divergent 
public and private interests, some of which are rep- 
resented by powerful lobbying forces. There is con- 
flict between recreational and preservation interests. 
Meeting urban recreational needs in the coastal 
region is perhaps the greatest immediate problem 
and may also offer the greatest opportunity for 
innovation and success to the States, cities and Fed- 
eral Government. Several cities have projects to re- 
‘vive older, often historic, waterfront facilities made 
obsolete by changing patterns of maritime trans- 
portation. In addition to attracting tourists and 
serving as residential and commercial centers, re- 
vitalized waterfront areas often included recreational 
opportunities for nearby residents. San Francisco, 
Boston, Newport, and Savannah are outstanding 
examples of waterfront restoration projects. 
The growing demands for the recreational use of 
coastal lands and waters must be considered in the 
context of the finite extent of the coastal area, its 
development for private use, and the spiraling cost 
of land acquisition to preserve such land for use by 
the public. As an example: A stretch of beach less 
than 1,000 feet long in Boca Raton, Fla., recently 
commanded a price of $3.7 million. Land prices 
near major metropolitan areas are even more drama- 
tic. The reservation of major portions of coastal 
land for public use is nearly impossible given the 
inflated coastal land values, the uncertain financial 
conditions of cities and States that find operating 
costs Outdistancing tax revenues, and the limited 
amount of Federal funds available for land acqui- 
sition through the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. 
Public Access to the Coasts 
Public access to beaches is a two-part problem: 
First, who retains rights to the use of beaches? 
Where does private property end and where do 
rights to public use begin? Second, if ownership of 
the beach margin is retained by the public, how does 
the public gain access to the shoreline across private 
property? These questions are complicated, because, 
under the American system of common law, each 
State is a separate sovereign and establishes its rules 
of law according to the historical customs and 
societal mores within that State. The evolution of 
State law from the Napoleonic Code in Louisiana, 
or Spanish land grants in Texas, can lead to sig- 
nificantly different rules of law than those of the 
States making up the 13 original English colonies. 
(See Appendix B.) Furthermore, each State has its 
own unique problems that tend to influence the evo- 
lution of law governing coastal use. 
Four legal theories are cited as entitling members 
of the public to the use—as distinguished from own- 
ership—of beaches: (1) public trust doctrine, (2) 
theory of implied dedication. (3) customary rights 
doctrine, and (4) theory of prescriptive easements. 
The last three theories are based upon the concepts 
of adverse possession and prescriptive rights and are 
grounded in the historical beneficial use of property 
by the public which in time ripens to a legal right, 
although that property may have been in private 
ownership originally. The trust doctrine, however, 
embodies the concept of sovereignty—residing in a 
governmental entity—which holds certain lands “in 
trust” for the public. Thus, the public interest in 
such lands is paramount to all private interests. 
While these four legal theories form the basis for 
resolving the issues of public vis-a-vis private rights 
in beaches within several coastal States, their ap- 
plication is more the exception than the rule. Most 
States continue to recognize the right of property, 
whether for coastal beach access or use of the beach 
itself. Most States also permit local government to 
limit the use of beaches to individuals based on prop- 
erty ownership or residence within the ae ciction 
of the local government. 
The concepts of public use continue to change 
however. In 1976, the Georgia Court expanded 
public beach use in that State from the low-tide line 
to the high-tide mark.’°* Other complex legal ques- 
tions continue to arise, such as whether the public 
beach area expands when new beach is formed over 
the old existing tide lines or do the private rights of 
adjoining property owners move seaward, pushing 
the public areas out to the newly defined high-tide 
line? 
Oregon, Texas, and the Virgin Islands have enacted 
so-called “open beaches” laws in an effort to dis- 
tinguish the public and private rights to eae use 
by statute. 
The Texas statute was enacted in 1959 (Texas 
Ann. Stat., Sec. 5415(d), Vernon Supp., 1972). 
Sponsored by State representative (now U.S. Con- 
gressman) Robert C. Eckhardt, the Texas law seeks 
to: (1) preserve the public’s rights to the use of 
State-owned and wet sand beach and so much of the 
dry sand beach as would be allowed under State com- 
mon law; and (2) acquire a public right to use the 
dry sand beach based on a legal presumption of a 
reserved right of the public to use that area, notwith- 
standing a grant by the State to a private owner. The 
Texas model has been introduced by Congressman 
108 5 Ste ate oe Georgia v. 
236 GA. 401. 
Ashmore et al., February 24, 1976, 
Tv—49 
